[JamieC]

This is where if two judges score a round to a particular fighter they get the round, if the judges have it Judge 1: Fighter A, Judge 2:Fighter B and Judge 3: Draw then the round would be 10-10 and so on.

For example consensus scoring would have had Chilemba beating Bellew 116:114 and it would have also had Crolla-Mathews a 115-115 draw, both fair scores in my opinion. Should this system be rolled out to mitigate poor judging when some judges hand in almost random scorecards?

If anyone can work out what result consensus scoring would have given in controversial fights stick them in here so we can see if it really works :lol:

 

[JamieC]

Kessler 116:112 Froch
JMM 113:112 Pacman (First bout)
Bradley 114:113 Provodnikov

 

[Havik]

First Google result is an academic paper on consensus scoring vs. the current system. The authors compared the results of 956 title fights under consensus scoring with the current system, and the think the current system is better.

The paper is here (.pdf): http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/research/106full.pdf .

The interesting part starts on p.19, some excerpts:

- The good:

Veteran USA Today boxing writer Jon Saraceno (1999) lists the following bouts as "the three worst draws I've seen first hand:" Ray Leonard-Tommy Hearns II, Whitaker-Chavez, and Holyfield-Lewis I.
All three of Saraceno's "worst draws" are resolved by the Majority/NY Systems in a fashion which the public would have approved; they score the fights for Hearns (113-112 on both systems), Whitaker (115-112 on the Majority system, 116-113 on the NY system) and Lewis (115-113 on both systems), respectively

- The bad:

Consider the first Azumah Nelson - Jeff Fenech bout, held in 1991, which ended in a split decision draw with judges' scores of 115-113 Fenech, 116-112 Nelson, and 114-114. Los Angeles Times writers Earl Gustkey and Allan Malamud both disagreed with the decision, as Gustkey had the bout 118-110 Fenech, and Malamud had Fenech "by four points" (Gustkey, 1991; Malamud, 1991). The president of the Australian National Boxing Federation, Peter Burchall, protested the outcome of the first Nelson-Fenech fight, saying, "we feel an unfair decision was rendered" (Unattributed, 1991a).

In response to the decision and the ensuing controversy, WBC President Jose Sulaiman ordered a rematch between Nelson and Fenech (Unattributed,1991b). However, had the Majority or NY System been in use for this fight, there would have likely
been even more uproar following the contest: both systems would have scored the bout 115-113 for
Nelson.

1997 Lonnie Bradley-Otis Grant match. The official scores were 115-113 Grant, 115-113 Bradley,
and 114-114. The Majority and NY systems score this bout 115-113 Bradley. Yet, at the time the
draw verdict was announced following the fight, Bradley seemed to be both surprised and happy to be
given a draw. Indeed, the public sentiment in this bout was that Grant deserved the victory (Todd,
1997; Stubbs, 1997).

Many high-profile fights in our dataset are bouts which, in the eyes of some, were "bad decisions:"
these include Michael Spinks-Larry Holmes II, Marvin Hagler-Ray Leonard, Jose Luis Ramirez-Pernell
Whitaker I, James Toney-Dave Tiberi, Evander Holyfield-Michael Moorer I, Julio Cesar Chavez -
Frankie Randall II, George Foreman-Axel Schulz, Francois Botha-Axel Schulz, Pernell Whitaker-Oscar
de la Hoya, and Oscar de la Hoya-Felix Trinidad. Anyone who was disgruntled with any of these listed
decisions would remain disgruntled, as all of those fights have the same verdict under the Majority/NY
Systems.

Since our data ends with December 1999 fights, boxing's most recent "bad decision," Erik
Morales-Marco Antonio Barrera (February 19, 2000), was not one of our 956 fights examined. We
obtained the scorecards from that fight separately, from the Nevada State Athletic Commission. This
"bad decision," too, would be unresolved by consensus scoring as the Majority/NY Systems pick Erik
Morales-the controversial winner under the Must system-as the winner (and still champion).

There are several fights in our dataset which were not viewed as "bad decisions" by the public, but
likely would have been if the Majority or NY Systems had been used. As Table 8 reveals, there are
nine unanimous decisions out of these 956 fights in which the Majority/NY systems do not award
the fight to the winner on all three judges' cards

Under the Majority/NY Systems, both these rematches (Whitaker-Rivera II & Johnston-Bazan II) would have resulted in draws, seemingly depriving Whitaker and Johnston of their hard-fought "revenge" against their opponents.

An example of a split decision being "reversed" under the Majority/NY Systems is the Michael Carbajal-Mauricio Pastrana bout. The scores for this bout are in Table 10. Of the decision, Borges (1997) notes that "about the only person who thought Carbajal had won the bout was a judge, because not even Carbajal was willing to argue for himself after it was over."

Yet Carbajal wins the fight 115-113 on either the Majority or NY System scorecard.

- The conclusion:

The question of whether consensus scoring systems would reduce the amount of "bad decisions" in
boxing has usually been answered by pointing to their performance on one or two specific fights (most
recently, Holyfield-Lewis I). However, we find that while the Majority or NY Systems would resolve
three important "bad decisions"-Leonard-Hearns II, Whitaker-Chavez, and Holyfield-Lewis I-in
a manner consistent with public sentiment, the systems would actually induce more "bad decisions."

They would do so either by converting draws into victories that are not consistent with public opinion
of who won the fight (e.g. Azumah Nelson-Jeff Fenech I scored for Nelson and Lonnie Bradley-Otis
Grant scored for Bradley) or by converting unanimous decisions-cases where all three judges agree, in
their scorecard totals, that one fighter on the bout-into reversals or draws. This latter phenomenon
occurs nine times in our 956-fight dataset, including the relatively high-profile Whitaker-Rivera II
(Table 9).

 

[JamieC]

Cheers @Havik, just what I was after! Interesting read that, looks like this system we've got is alright, just needs decent judges!

 

[Grant]

If this was used, Calzaghe beat Hopkins something like 9-3.

 

[Roe]

just needs decent judges!

Use the 'yes or no' system. 4 yes's is a UD, 3 and a no is majority, 2's each is split with the winner decided by however they do it on these crappy talent shows. If all 4 judges buzz in because they're bored of a fighter (Mayweather, Klitschko etc) then it gets stopped immediately.

Replace Jim Gray and Max Kellerman with Ant and Dec for the post-fight interviews and it's sorted.

If people want boxing on terrestrial tv again..

 

[JamieC]

Use the 'yes or no' system. 4 yes's is a UD, 3 and a no is majority, 2's each is split with the winner decided by however they do it on these crappy talent shows. If all 4 judges buzz in because they're bored of a fighter (Mayweather, Klitschko etc) then it gets stopped immediately.

Replace Jim Gray and Max Kellerman with Ant and Dec for the post-fight interviews and it's sorted.

If people want boxing on terrestrial tv again..

:lol:

 

[adamcanavan]

I think it wouldnt make much differebce as corrupt judges would work with that systen as well, and when the judges are just plain wrong,, pac-bradley for example would consensus scoring have still given it to bradley?

 

[scribbs]

I think you would still get bad decisions. De la Hoya got a gift against Sturm so he could fight Hopkins. If a consensus was brought in then they (judges) could be swayed to score more iffy rounds to the name / hometown fighter so that a "correct" result could be rendered.

I've had a look at some fighters from the 1890's & there was a lot of iffy decisions around NY due to betting scandals. Shit happens & has been going on since boxing came about.

 

[Havik]

If this was used, Calzaghe beat Hopkins something like 9-3.

Exactly 9-3 even, if my count is right:

 

[Havik]

I think it wouldnt make much differebce as corrupt judges would work with that systen as well, and when the judges are just plain wrong,, pac-bradley for example would consensus scoring have still given it to bradley?

Quick count: 7-5 Bradley. I don't think you can compensate for bad/corrupt judges by counting their scores differently. The summary execution of judges handing in absurd scorecards would be a more rational way to solve the problem.

 

[scribbs]

Quick count: 7-5 Bradley. I don't think you can compensate for bad/corrupt judges by counting their scores differently. The summary execution of judges handing in absurd scorecards would be a more rational way to solve the problem.

Please stop with bad / corrupt judging for this fight, Pacman lost fair & square. 115-113 for Bradley

 

[Bryn]

Please stop with bad / corrupt judging for this fight, Pacman lost fair & square. 115-113 for Bradley

You're in the minority, Scribbs. Can't see a case for Bradley winning.

 

[JamieC]

Please stop with bad / corrupt judging for this fight, Pacman lost fair & square. 115-113 for Bradley

I have to disagree with this, i saw a poll (may have been Boxing News?) where over 90% had Pacquiao winning, i dont see how that can be a win for Bradley

 

[scribbs]

You're in the minority, Scribbs. Can't see a case for Bradley winning.

Fair do's, I'm in a minority, but the point is that the fight was closer than most people make out. I think it's silly that judges would intentionally fuck over Pacman if there was still a glimmer of hop in making the PBF fight. Cunningham - Adamek 2 was a worse decision imo.

 

[Havik]

Please stop with bad / corrupt judging for this fight, Pacman lost fair & square. 115-113 for Bradley

The fightscorecollector guy only found 1 press score for Bradley, and a couple of dozen wide-ish scores for Pac: http://fightscorecollector.blogspot.be/2012/06/robbery-bradley-dethrones-pacquiao.html . When almost everyone thinks a decision went the wrong way, then it probably did.

 

[scribbs]

I have to disagree with this, i saw a poll (may have been Boxing News?) where over 90% had Pacquiao winning, i dont see how that can be a win for Bradley

This issue is that 10% or less had Bradley winning or maybe a draw & 2 judges who have the all important vote agreed with this minority. We've debated this before Jamie , but as i've said in response to Bryn, the fight was a lot closer than a lot of people make out. Some were calling it the worst decision ever, give me a break. If peep's have Pacman by a slim margin, then I've no argument but not by 10 points. It annoys me that they are seen as incompetent because decision was against a general consensus, whereas the incompetent elements for me are the wide scores than some have put out.

 

[scribbs]

The fightscorecollector guy only found 1 press score for Bradley, and a couple of dozen wide-ish scores for Pac: http://fightscorecollector.blogspot.be/2012/06/robbery-bradley-dethrones-pacquiao.html . When almost everyone thinks a decision went the wrong way, then it probably did.

For me, it went the right way, for others it didn't, I accept that but there are people who believe Bradley won, it's just a close decision that's contentious not a corrupt fight, that's the point I'm making

 

[JamieC]

This issue is that 10% or less had Bradley winning or maybe a draw & 2 judges who have the all important vote agreed with this minority. We've debated this before Jamie , but as i've said in response to Bryn, the fight was a lot closer than a lot of people make out. Some were calling it the worst decision ever, give me a break. If peep's have Pacman by a slim margin, then I've no argument but not by 10 points. It annoys me that they are seen as incompetent because decision was against a general consensus, whereas the incompetent elements for me are the wide scores than some have put out.

But the thing with boxing is the winner is decided by majority opinion effectively. The phrase that the fight is a lot closer than people think is ind of null and void, the fight is as close as people judge it to be, if they dont judge it to be close then it isnt if you get what I mean?

Having said that I respect your opinion on boxing as you are knowledgeable and have no doubt you scored the fight competently and I'm sure your score was an accurate one, just one of a different opinion to mine :good

 

[scribbs]

Four times with Bradley winning 115-113 x 3, 116-113 x1.

Anyway, I've hijacked this thread from the original debate but using the Bradley fight then I would say no to consensus. That being said I get the point you make in regards to the OP, I think we need to a different scoring system but on the same lines as we have now.

I would go on a rounds system & if a fight was drawn (e.g. 6 rounds each) then go to a points system. A round would be 10-9 for a win, 10-8 for a very dominant round & then extra deducted for knockdowns. It would need some tweaking but as a general blueprint it would be ok, I think. This is how it used to be scored on the rounds basis.